Okay, I have been accepted and put in my seat deposit, but apparently Stetson, since my acceptance, has changed their requirements for incoming 1L's, and the change goes into affect this fall. Essentially, Real Property and Contracts are no longer year long courses, and they have adjusted their credits, making each class 4 credits instead of 3 (except for R&W). This worries me.

My concerns are that this will be frowned upon by potential employers. Why hire someone from Stetson that has but one semester of contracts over someone that was required to take a full year of this dreadful material? Are they doing this to save money? Are they doing this because a full year is not necessary? Doesn't cutting these core courses though to one semester restrict it to memorization only? Opinions about the school aside, sticking with this point only, should this worry me? Why would Stetson do this?

My school is taking away Torts II and making it a 4 unit one semester course from now on so it sounds like the same thing, but in regards to a different course. I think schools vary in their curriculum somewhat and I think it is somewhat common, but at least in the bay area schools it was torts and criminal law that varied by school. Torts really isn't that complicated and I personally felt that two semesters of it was a waste of time and they are reducing it to one 4 unit class at my school now. However, contracts and particularly property have a LOT of material so it is surprising they are not covering those over two semesters. did you ask the school what there reasoning was?

It all depends on what the school is doing with $$. Stetson pays their professors reasonably well, but even better for the board of directors. They have put hardly any money into the school itself in years. Then you have other schools such as Barry which on the US News and World report scale is lower, but man do they have $$$, and they are heavily investing this into the school and programs. They are also killing it with their trial team the last few years.